Likeability bias hurts women in politics—but this might be changing

About this Episode

Ever heard someone say “I just don’t like her” about a woman running for office? So many of us judge women candidates more harshly than we judge men—and it’s driven by something called likeability bias (or the likeability penalty). On this episode of Tilted, you’ll hear directly from women who work in politics how this bias has played out in the past and why it might be changing for the hundreds of women running for office this year.

More ways to listen

Transcript

Welcome to Tilted, a Lean In Podcast. Each week we explore the uneven playing field -- the gender bias that lurks in unexpected corners, the impact it has on our everyday lives, and what happens when women lean in and start driving change. I’m your host Rachel Thomas, President and Co-founder of Lean In.

We’ve all heard people say, “I just don’t like her” about a woman running for office. I hate to admit it, and he’s a great guy, but my Dad said this about Hillary Clinton when she was running for president. And when I asked him why, he couldn’t really explain it – he just didn’t like her, she rubbed him the wrong way. And, my Dad is not alone – so many men and women fall into the trap of judging women candidates more harshly than we judge men -- and it’s more about personality with women, too. Given the research we do at Lean In on gender bias, I had a pretty good sense that this was driven by what experts call likeability bias – also known as the likeability penalty, which is the term I prefer. But I wanted to hear from women who cover and work in politics to better understand what’s going on and get a sense of how it’s affecting all the women running for office this year. So I headed to our nation’s capital, with a quick stop in New York, to get some answers.

Rachel: I'm thrilled to be sitting down with Kate Zernike, the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times writer. Kate has been covering politics for years and is currently covering the wave of women running for office in the midterm elections. Kate welcome to the podcast

Kate: Thanks for having me.

Rachel: At Lean In we talk a lot about likability bias. We expect men to be assertive, so when they take the lead it feels natural. We expect women to be kind and communal, so when they speak up or assert themselves we often like them less. And we also know that as men get more powerful, we like them more and as women get more powerful, we often like them less and it feels like so much of this comes together when women are running for office. They're trying to get a powerful position and they need to speak up and assert themselves to get there. How have you seen this play out in politics?

Kate: Well, I think that's true. I think there is a sort of, as you say, likeability bias, but also just women are judged so much on their personality. We also demand more in terms of them presenting their qualifications, and research by the Barbara Lee Foundation and others has shown that when voters look at women, they demand that women present their qualifications. But they also want the woman to be likeable. And, in many ways, the more she presents her qualifications, the less likeable she becomes because she can seem like she's lecturing maybe about, “this is what I've done, and this is what I've done.” Whereas, with men voters assume they're qualified and they don't really care whether they're likeable. If they don't like some guy it's fine. I mean, I think we saw this with Mitt Romney. You know there were a lot of men who didn't particularly warm to Mitt Romney's personality but they saw him as a businessman and you know qualified. Of course, you know the big one is Hillary Clinton. Right. The more she talked about all she had done the more it was, “Oh, she's so boring. She's so you know, predictable. She's so establishment.” It was almost like she couldn't win. You know, remember the famous moment without even with Obama, you know, Hillary you're likeable enough. And so for a lot of women it's getting to that point of being likeable enough but also presenting her qualifications.

Rachel: Women are on a tightrope. So, on one hand, they need to assert themselves and take the lead to be effective. But yet when they do they're often less liked and men just don't walk that tightrope.

Kate: Well, imagine that in front of millions of voters, right. And you have been doing it, if you're Hillary Clinton, for instance, you've been doing it for 30 years and you're judged constantly and then not only are you judged on your personality, but should you become say a bit defensive about all this which might be the natural reaction in real life…

Rachel: Does seems like a human response.

Kate: Exactly right, it's a human response and then you're you know oh, you're so cold. You're not warm, you're not likeable enough.

Rachel: Yeah, this is really tricky stuff. What role have you seen the media play in all of this.? Do they cover, and you cover I guess, not personally, but you're part of the media. Do you cover female and male candidates differently?

Kate: You know, I think the traditional thing has always been, oh you know, reporters focus more on what women are wearing and what women's looks are. And I feel like that doesn't even scratch the surface. That may be true. But for me, it's sort of like our expectations and the questions we don't ask. So, to bring up another example is Nancy Pelosi. Right. And this is something that I think Republicans are stoking maybe a little more than it really exists among Democratic voters. But you know, they're saying Nancy Pelosi so polarizing. She's a terrible leader so you now have some Democratic candidates coming out saying I won't support Nancy Pelosi. Well OK. On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi really got the Affordable Care Act passed. And you don't hear the same kind of criticism of, say, Chuck Schumer who has been the leader of the Democrats for a long time. You didn't necessarily hear this about Harry Reid. There's just a much more heated reaction to women. And I think that the media plays into that and again it's the questions we don't ask - we don't say, “Hmm how come we're not treating Nancy Pelosi the same way we’re treating Chuck Schumer?,” for instance.

Rachel: This year obviously a ton of women are running. And it's amazing. Is that shaking things up in the media a little bit? And what I mean by that is there's so many women with different personalities and different backgrounds who look different. Is that helping?

Kate: Well, I think, yes, I think a couple of things are happening. One, you not only have more female candidates but you have more female campaign managers. More women doing ads. You have more women voters and women voters are seen as more important. Right. So I think there are considerations in there and what they want to see is being taken more into account. What's happening this cycle partly just because of the sheer numbers is that female candidates are much more empowered to kind of present a different image of themselves. You know, this idea that like they are complete people, they're not. They're not necessarily like the tough woman who, you know, can deal with the national security crisis or just the mom. They are the mom and the woman who can deal with the national security crisis. And so, you know, I used to talk about this. I did a story earlier on where it was like they're showing their kids, they're showing their tattoos and the like. People refer to “the tattoo thing.” I mean but it's true. Like, you know, if we think about the old model, it's a woman in a pantsuit reciting her resume. That's really changed this year.

Rachel: This is already an historic year. It doesn't even matter how many of these women win. It's an historic year that so many women are running. Give us a sense of how unprecedented it is.

Kate: It's absolutely historic. So we had more than - I think it's close to 500 women filing to run for Congress. So either the House or the Senate. Of those women more than 200 made it through. They’re now running [in] the general election. That is enormous. If you consider now that we have 84 women in the House. That's pretty high compared to where we were in 1992, the famous Year of the Woman. So we now have just many, more numbers. We have a record number of woman versus woman races, you know a female Democrat [versus a] female Republican. Again we have a record number of women of color running for office. So the question is, though, what happens to all this.

Rachel: And one of the things I always try to remind myself, to stay grounded is that even if they all won, we're still dramatically underrepresented.

Kate: Yes. So if, for instance, if I would say in the best case scenario in the House, we have 84 women now. We'll probably end up with, in the best case scenario, I would say 116. Best case scenario. There is a scenario where we remain at about 84. Again, to be at parity, it's got to be about 270. That's a huge way to go.

These numbers matter. OK? I don’t want to underplay that at all. You know we're talking about female candidates in a different way - we're presenting young women with different pictures of what it looks like to run for office. We are talking about women's issues and, in a new way, we're redefining what women's issues are. We're much more interested in what women voters are saying and thinking and what they're going to do in November, and that's important.

And I think women this year have realized that politics matters and that they can make a difference - they're exercising their political power in a much different way. That is not nothing, regardless of where we end up with the numbers in November.

I learned so much talking to Kate. She put this year’s election in historical context for me, and for you I hope. But I’ll be honest – I wanted all of you listening to hear more about the pushback women candidates face so you get all fired up to push back against it. So with that, I headed to D.C. to talk to political veterans who’ve seen it all.

Rachel: I'm excited to be sitting down with two women who have been on the front lines of combating the likeability penalty in politics: Karen Finney and Katie Beeson. Karen and Katie have been around politics a long time. Karen is a leading Democratic consultant, a TV contributor and columnist, and she's worked in national politics for 20 years, most recently as senior advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign and now she's working with Stacey Abrams in Georgia. So thrilled to have you.

Karen: Great to be with you.

Rachel: Katie is also a familiar face on TV. She appears on MSNBC, Fox News and CNN and has managed campaigns at every level including four presidential campaigns. She's now the founding partner of Burning Glass Consulting, an all-female team of Republican strategists. Welcome to the podcast, Katie.

Katie: Thanks for having me.

Rachel: So we just chatted with Kate Zernike at the New York Times earlier about this idea of the likeability penalty that when women assert themselves, when they're powerful, when they speak up, we like them less. Paint a picture for us. Tell us some stories about how you've experienced this phenomenon in the work that you've done.

Karen: There are a couple of things to remember. Women have to balance likeability. What goes into that is her appearance and that can be her makeup and her clothing, not just her policy positions. But if she has children, it's well who's taking care of her kids. That's something that women have to answer and again that goes to likeability. To say, well I don't like that I don't know what's going on with her kids. And, you know, there's an empathy that we expect from women that we don't necessarily expect from men.

So, for women, it’s a much more complicated picture in terms of what goes into likeability. And I’ll just give you one very small example. When Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000, she wore mostly dark pantsuits, black pantsuits and would change out her shirt color. The reason for that was to take out one of the kinds of factors that we know plays against women and likeability. I kid you not. Which is, you're not looking at her clothing. It's plain, it’s simple. You might note that, and I had very seasoned political reporters once or twice on the campaign trail during that race when we would we went to black churches where you know you do wear a skirt. Literally the AP reporter said, “I'm so embarrassed to ask you this question but what shade of yellow would you call that that outfit? My editor is insisting that I include it.”

Rachel: You can't see me but I'm rolling my eyes right now.

Karen: These are the kinds of things that play into how voters judge whether they like a woman candidate or not.

Katie: The whole likeability issue has a whole lot to do with expectations and what we expect of people: what we expect of men, what we expect of women, what we expect of politicians. For women that came of age at the time that Hillary Clinton did, for instance, there was sort of a sense that if you were going to be a politician that you had to act a certain way — aka you kind of had to act a little more like a guy. Nowadays, I think that women do have much more freedom to just be who they are and kind of put it all out there and not show their soft side. You know, I remember when I was running a Republican campaign against Jennifer Granholm in Michigan, it was her first time running for governor - she had been the attorney general and she had young children. And she's a very charismatic candidate and she had kind of this shtick, where she would stand up to give a speech and if you only saw it once it was very charming. And of course we thought lots of times because we were on the campaign trail with her. But she would go to get her reading glasses out of her purse and as she rummaged around in her purse she would pull out a happy meal toy or a pacifier and kind of set it up on the podium to say, “Oh you know, if you’re mom's in the audience you know what this was like.” And it was obviously a very calculated sort of thing that showed a very human side to her and caused an awful lot of women in the audience to relate to her and say, “Man, that's exactly what my purse looks like.” But I don't think that Hillary Clinton probably would have felt the freedom to be out front like that with her child had she been running 20 years earlier than when she ran. And so a lot of it has to do with what we expect a woman to be like and what we expect a man to be like. And we do have very, very high expectations for how a woman is supposed to behave. And only now are we kind of I think altering that.

Karen: And we don't trust women with power. That's part of you know we haven't yet broken through enough in terms of expectations to say we can expect that a woman with power is going to be effective and able to deliver on their promises and keep us safe and do a competent job even though we have plenty of examples.

Karen: Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of Kansas, talked about how when she ran for governor we were very much still in the war and part of being governor was the National Guard. And so what she found in her race was she needed to show - it was her reelection really - that she had the toughness to command those troops because that was very much a part of what was on people's minds, much more so than I think it is today but still have the empathy of caring for military families and the whole other set of issues — the two sides. The men in her race didn't have to do that. It was just you know he's going to be tough. We don't need him to be empathetic. And so that to that fine line that you're talking about. That's how it can play out in some of these other races.

Karen: I can tell you, in Stacey Abrams' race, she is running for governor in Georgia. She would be the first African-American female governor in the history of our country anywhere. If she were to win. And one of the hits we've had consistently is that she's too ambitious. When she was I think a freshman in college she kind of created, because this is just who she is if you know her, she made a chart and a grid of like OK how do you fight poverty, what jobs would I need? You know, what classes do I take? You know, that whole kind of charting her path to how to become someone who can fight poverty. And as she mentioned in the story years later she wrote “President” not because she's truly interested in running for president but just like that's a job where you can fight poverty. Now they took that out of context and said “Oh running for governor is just a stepping stone.” She's got craven ambition. Two things I would say on this. Number one, I never ever hear them say that a man is too ambitious ever in any race. So that's blatant sexism. But secondly, I'll tell you what I found and this is a place where I think we definitely still need change, and I think it will, in fact, also change how women are perceived. The reporters, most of whom are white men who cover her, we had to explain to them why that was a sexist charge and, in some ways, even racist because it's sort of this idea that well she's uppity but he doesn't know her place.

Rachel: We've talked a lot about the downsides. What are some of the benefits of being a woman candidate?

Karen: Well, voters tend to perceive women as less corruptible, in terms of honesty and trustworthiness. I think one of the other things that are positive for women is just the resilience of women and being able to talk about that in a way that helps people, particularly in this moment, feel heard and understand that this is someone who actually understands what I'm going through because you know she's gone through those challenges as well. And it's not to say that men don't have their challenges, and they do, but women tend to just be better able to articulate them.

Katie: We looked at this issue a lot at Burning Glass coming out of 2012 when we presumed that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee in the next presidential campaign. We started digging to try to figure out how men and women viewed Hillary Clinton - what would be her assets what would be her vulnerabilities. And one of the things that we found is that women kind of come to the table just as a baseline with a presumption that they're not a typical politician. Because a typical politician, and when you say “typical politician,” it's just two words but it comes across as very derogatory.

Rachel: Well, it means a lot to some people.

Katie: Sure. And a typical politician is rich, white, male, and old. And grouchy. That was kind of what we got from our research. So if you cannot be any of those things it makes you less typical. So of course a woman, particularly a woman who's not rich, who's not white, who's not grouchy, and is not old, you know is starting at a baseline that's pretty strong. The problem is that the minute they start behaving like a typical politician then all of that goes to pieces. So, we, you know, we did a lot of focus groups and we saw that Hillary Clinton was very, very strong. But when you introduced information where she seemed to pass the buck, that hurt her a lot. When she seemed to flip flop, that hurt her a lot. When she seemed to kind of equivocate and not be completely honest and transparent, that hurt her a lot, because all of a sudden she was starting to act more and more like a typical politician.

Rachel: So, in a couple of things that you both said, it sounds like you believe things are getting better for women. We’re continuing to evolve as a culture, we're starting to see leadership differently. The more women who run, the more we change what you expect of a female candidate. How good do we think it is this year? What should we expect? And are these women still facing some likeability pushback and having to grapple with this?

Katie: I think that I was probably very, very hopeful three or four years ago. I've actually been a little bit surprised - and listeners who are Democrats and who really don't like Republicans will probably be shocked to hear me say this - but I have been surprised at how much sexism still exists in my party. I've witnessed comments and polls that have been a little alarming to me in terms of how men who vote Republican view women. And so while I do think it has improved, I've been a little bit demoralized over the last couple of years with what I've seen from within my own party.

Karen: I can't agree more not just in your party but I think in the country broadly. You know one of the things in 2016 that we saw, I mean it was really interesting to see groups of voters, Democrats, some of whom in parts of this country were completely unwilling to vote for President Obama because he's black, but were willing to vote for Hillary, as they would say even though she was a woman, but because she was white — and the reverse. And as a black woman, I should say, that was really painful to see how much racism and sexism really still play into these dynamics. I think one of the challenges, though, that we're seeing and certainly when we saw it in the results you know there's so many women running this cycle, it's incredible. I mean, I would like to see more women Republicans running. If you look at what's happened in Congress, it is really the women, particularly in the Senate but also in the House. I mean think about the stalemate we had over the budget - sort of this famous story now about how it was the women, Republican and Democratic women, who came together and pushed through that stalemate. And one of the things that we're seeing that's so interesting in this moment is voters are actually saying, well wait a second. Women's collaborative leadership style — because that's what is associated with women—maybe that's a good thing. Maybe that's something we need. Maybe we need more people willing to - and able to - bring different voices around the table to talk to each other. And you know the second thing I would say that's interesting, that that is changing, I think, in a positive, is that voters who are looking for change or for something different just by the virtue of being a woman puts you in that category.

Rachel: So a lot of people are heralding 2018 as the year of the woman or the year of women. Yes? No? We don't know yet? What's your prediction?

Karen: Oh absolutely. I mean, the question as I see it posed is “Will it be?” And the answer that I give is it already has been. It already is. Because--

Rachel: That’s a great answer. You're answering a better question.

Karen: Well, because look I think it is in a number of ways not just because, I mean part of what's happening in 2018 that I think is so positive is not just that we have more women candidates at all levels and so many different types of backgrounds, younger or older. You know you name it, different parts of the country. But women, as a voting bloc, I think we are more aware of our power than ever before. And I think that's the other piece of this equation which is you know each one of us as a woman, as any human any person in this country has power around our opportunity to vote. And just the virtue of the fact that we're having so much conversation about the power of women and the women's vote, I think is a really positive thing. And so what I hope is that and as much as going forward we continue to have scores of women running for office, I want women to continue to show up for elections at all levels and vote because that really is our power. It's already the year of the women. I just hope we keep it going and I hope we make it a decade of women's leadership.

Katie: I like to say a year of the woman, because I'd like to think that it's only going to grow from here.

Rachel: Hang tight. We’re gonna take a quick break to hear from our sponsor. But then, we’ll be right back.

Rachel: Katie and Karen’s stories really left me jaw-dropped and I bet a lot of you are feeling the same way. But they mostly focus on big, national and state-level campaigns. And so many women, literally thousands are running for smaller offices this year and many of them are first-time candidates. This led me to the non-partisan organization She Should Run, they offer women hands-on support they need to get out there and I wanted to know what they’re seeing.

Rachel: I am here with Erin Loos Cutraro, founder and CEO She Should Sun. Tell us a little bit about She Should Run.

Erin: Sure. So She Should Run exists to build the pipeline of future elected leaders. We really focus on getting women who aren't already at the table there so that we can build a government that is representative of this country.

Rachel: And why no “he should run?”

Erin: He should run Is the system. We actually get that question a lot:“You know, do you build out programs for men?” The whole system was built for and by men. And so what we're really trying to do is help bring women together so that they can identify with one another the unique barriers that they face. The value that they bring to the table. So they're stronger together as they do what is very hard which is run for office.

Rachel: So let's talk about unique barriers. One of the things that we talk a lot is what we call the likeability penalty. How do you see that playing out in politics?

Erin: It is there in politics just bright and shiny. I'll use an example around sexism because this is something that women really face in a unique way on the campaign trail. So we did some research a few years back to look at how women being asked about their appearance affects their likeability on the campaign trail. And we knew that there was something there. But we weren't quite sure how big that something was until we got into the study and what we found was when women are asked about their appearance or when they're asked about issues that men maybe hardly ever asked about, like how can you handle your kids on the campaign trail? That not only do women take a hit in terms of likeability, but their qualifications come into question. And so you know voters sort of look at them and subconsciously they sort of question whether or not that person can be in a leadership role. The great news, so let me not bury the lede on this, was that we found, that if women call those instances out, so saying something as simple as, (to each their own by the way and how you respond to this.) but something as simple as, you know, I don't think that my appearance is as important as my policy platform. (Pivot to your policy platform.) Just just that little note of, I see what you're doing--

Rachel: And I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Erin: And I'm not going to let you get away with it. And let’s get back to--

Rachel: And I’m nice, I’m smiling while I say it.

Erin: Exactly! I'm likeable! And pivoting back to the issues that you're saying I know voters want to hear about what I'm going to bring to this role. So you're pivoting back to your qualifications that not only do you make up for lost lost ground but you actually gain points with likeability because voters look at you and say, OK if she's going to stand up for herself she'll stand up for me, which is really encouraging.

Rachel: This is so fascinating. Men don't get asked, for example, anything about their appearance.

Erin: Right.

Rachel: Women do.

Erin: Right.

Rachel: So already there's bias at play.

Erin: Right.

Rachel: And if they don't answer it perfectly right they get dinged again.

Erin: Right.

Rachel: Clearly She Should Run thinks, and I think you're right by the way, that women do need some extra support. What are the other reasons? We've talked about likeability, but what are the other reasons women need extra support? And what does it look like? How do you lift these women up?

Erin: The barriers really start with women not seeing themselves as qualified. That's the number one barrier. They're not seeing themselves as qualified and they're not coming to the table with the same built in infrastructure and network that men do. You know the system is really cards are often stacked against women when it comes to just things like fundraising. Women raise just as much money as men, but they have to work twice as hard to get there because that, that circle of support, is not just laid up for them. Now do they figure it out? Of course they do. But we have a lot of work to do to get to the place where it is really a level playing field. When a man and a woman steps up to run for office.

Rachel: It is really fascinating. I don't think any of us internalize all the little things that add up and make it harder. And one of the things I also have been struck by is that I've been talking to people about women running and why fewer women run is a lot of times I think people anchor in that women are less confident, which don't get me started - I have a whole point of view on why women are not inherently less confident. I think we just get a lot of mixed messages - it turns out when, it's harder, it feels harder.

Erin: Yes.

Rachel: And that’s my point. Women just have a steeper hill to climb. So [it] shouldn't surprise us that it's hard to get women over the hump to run.

Erin: We know that's daunting, but we also know that the atmosphere of the system that supports or does not support women will not change until we have women in those roles to make decisions, policy decisions, that will make it easier for women to lead and serve in elected office. So we have to get there, we have to be scrappy to get there.

Rachel: Yeah, it’s like a chicken and an egg.

Erin: We've just got to get there! I am just blown away every time a woman puts herself out there I'm blown away I'm blown away at her willingness frankly to be that person. Not only that is going to obviously be an incredible leader and advocate for those that she represents, but also to live her life in a public sphere. That's a real decision to make.

Rachel: I love that framing. We shouldn't be focusing on that women are not confident enough to run. We should be celebrating that women are total badasses if they get out there and run. Yes. I love that. And that's a good segue into: there's a lot going well this year too. I mean talk to us about the moment in time from your perspective. How viable do you think the candidates are running this year, the female candidates running?

Erin: So it is an exciting year. We have a record-breaking year of women across the board on the ballot. I think going into November elections that we have so much to gain in terms of new voices, especially younger voices, diverse voices that are coming to the table. I always like to sort of frame it up as, these are the sort of seismic steps forward that we need to take every single election cycle. We're not going to solve gender parity in elected office. I hope I'm not depressing anybody by saying that we're not going to solve it this election cycle. But if we can continue this momentum beyond November, we will be well positioned to see that gap close in our lifetime, which is what we're working towards. So 2018, right now, what we're seeing is obviously the record number of women running for Congress, the majority of those U.S. House candidates. We don't have a record number of women on the Senate side, but on the House side we have in that one third of the overall candidates are women of color. Which is--

Rachel: That’s amazing.

Erin: Which is frankly one of most important developments.

Rachel: Talk about being badasses, you’ve got to really be willing to go for it. We should be applauding those women.

Erin: With a completely different support structure that is just being built in many ways from the ground up. So I think I think that is a huge headline out of this election cycle.

Rachel: All right. Final thing putting you on the spot for all the women listening. What's your best pitch for them to get out there and run?

Erin: Look, if you have something in your life, which we all do, that you care deeply about and maybe you're giving to that financially. A cause, maybe you are supporting it with your time and you're not looking at the policies that are behind that, that could accelerate that very thing that you care about, you're missing an opportunity to make a substantial difference. And your voice is needed in that. Do not make the assumption that somebody else has it covered. They probably don't. You are needed. You have a community of people out there that want to support you. So step up and do it.

Rachel: I love that.

We’ve talked a lot about all the women running for office for this year – and what they’re up against. But let’s take a step back. Why does it really matter? It matters because we owe it to ourselves to be represented by people with the best ideas, who will stand up and fight for us -- no matter their gender. But for that to happen, we need to get beyond kneejerk responses to women candidates. We need to start engaging deeply with who they are and what they stand for. When we shortcut women, they miss out -- but we miss out, too. Like our experts said, this is already an historic election for women. They’re running for office in record numbers. They’re saying, “We want to make our country better at every level -- and we’re willing to do the work to get there.” And whether or not they win, something exciting is starting to happen: the more women who run for office, the more we break down age-old stereotypes about women, leadership, and power. And slowly but surely, obstacles like the likeability penalty will shrink -- and the path will clear for more women to run and win. Finally, to all you ladies listening...If you’re thinking about running for office, you should go for it. It’s going to be hard -- we all heard that today. And of course you might not win. But if you do, and a lot of you will, you will help make things better. We need more women in the rooms where things happen – we need more women driving change at every level of our government. So I hope you’ll run – and I hope you’ll be supported, respected and cheered on when you do. An America with more women in office would be a better America.

This has been Tilted: A Lean In Podcast, and I’m your host Rachel Thomas. Please subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, Google Play or wherever you get your podcasts. Our producers are Jordan Bell and Shara Morris, and our music was composed by Casey Holford. Special thanks to Katie Miserany, Ali Bohrer, and Megan Rooney from the Lean In team and Laura Mayer at Midroll.